5. Habitats Regulations Assessment - Rat Eradication: Handa

5.1. Assessment for LSE

  1. Screening for LSE considers the effects that may result from the rat eradication: Handa compensatory measure, as defined in Table 3   Open ▸ , in relation to the designated sites identified following the process described in Section 3.3. This section combines that information to determine LSE for the project alone. Key to LSE is the clear presence or absence of a pathway, linking the effect to a designated site or feature, together with known sensitivity of the feature to the effect.
  2. The presence or absence of a pathway is based on the scope and nature of the proposed compensatory measure activities together with the location of the designated feature, with the sensitivity of the feature(s) drawing on the relevant information available for the designated sites.
  3. For ornithological receptors, for the rat eradication: Handa compensatory measure, birds nesting at other breeding colonies within foraging range of Handa island are unlikely to be impacted by disturbance as they will be spending their time rafting/ fishing at sea or at their nests at other colonies. Additionally, during the non-breeding season, seabirds are not restricted to particular sites as they are during the breeding season, therefore any disturbance caused by monitoring is unlikely to cause significant negative effects on individuals. Additionally, NatureScot Guidance for Scottish bird species considers that the maximum range of disturbance for any bird species is 1 km (NatureScot, 2022). Therefore, factoring in the above, the nature of effects associated with this measure, and the application of expert judgement, a highly precautionary screening buffer of 5 km has been applied to this assessment.
  4. Additionally, there are no SACs within the screening range for Onshore Ecology receptors, and therefore there is considered to be no LSE for the Onshore Ecology receptor group and it is not considered further within this assessment for this compensatory measure.
  5. The conclusions for LSE are presented in Table 6   Open ▸ for the rat eradication: Handa compensatory measure. Where a potential LSE is identified, on a precautionary basis, it has been assumed by extension that there is the potential for LSE in-combination with other plans and projects.
Table 6:
Screening for LSE from the rat eradication: Handa compensatory measure

Table 6: Screening for LSE from the rat eradication: Handa compensatory measure

 

5.2. Assessment of Adverse Effect Alone – Information to Inform Appropriate Assessment

  1. Where the potential for LSE on a European site(s) has been identified ( Table 6   Open ▸ ), following the precautionary principle  is a requirement to consider whether that potential effect(s) will adversely affect the integrity of the site in view of its conservation objectives. LSE applies where a feature is known to be sensitive to the effect and a potential pathway cannot be discounted.
  2. The assessment of AEoI to inform the AA for the rat eradication: Handa compensatory measure is presented in Table 7   Open ▸ ; the table details all designated sites, features and effects for which LSE has been identified, proposes appropriate commitments (mitigation) that could be applied to avoid or reduce the impacts ( Table 2   Open ▸ ), and conclusions on whether there is potential for AEoI after the application of these commitments for the project alone. This assessment has been undertaken in view of all relevant conservation objectives published by the statutory nature conservation bodies.

 

Table 7:
Assessment of AEoI Alone for the rat eradication: Handa compensatory measure

Table 7: Assessment of AEoI Alone for the rat eradication: Handa compensatory measure

5.3. Assessment of Adverse Effect In-combination – Information to Inform Appropriate Assessment

  1. As the potential effects are exceedingly small in nature, no effects are anticipated further afield than Handa Island itself, and therefore the screening undertaken for plans and projects to be considered in-combination is limited to those with direct spatial overlap with the proposed compensatory measures.
  2. Following on from the above methodology, no projects have been identified for the consideration of in-combination effects. Therefore it can be concluded that this compensatory measure will not have an AEOI on any European site alone and in-combination with other plans and projects.

6. Habitats Regulations Assessment – Dunbar Castle Wardening Role

6.1. Assessment of LSE

  1. Screening for potential LSE considers the effects that may result from this compensatory measure, as defined in Table 3   Open ▸ , in relation to the designated sites identified following the process described in Section 3.3. This section combines that information to determine the potential LSE for the project alone. The key to LSE is the clear presence or absence of a pathway, linking the effect to a designated site or feature, together with known sensitivity of the feature to the effect.
  2. The presence or absence of a pathway is based on the scope and nature of the proposed compensatory measure activities together with the location of the designated feature, with the sensitivity of the feature(s) drawing on the relevant information available for the designated sites.
  3. For ornithological receptors, birds nesting at other breeding colonies within foraging range of the compensatory measure are unlikely to be impacted by disturbance as they will be spending the majority of the time rafting/ fishing at sea or at their nests at other colonies. Additionally, during the non-breeding season, seabirds are not restricted to particular sites as they are during the breeding season, therefore any disturbance caused by monitoring is unlikely to cause adverse effects on individuals. Additionally, NatureScot Guidance for Scottish bird species considers that the maximum range of disturbance for any bird species is 1 km (NatureScot, 2022). Therefore, factoring in the above, the nature of effects associated with this measure, and the application of expert judgement, a highly precautionary screening buffer of 5 km has been applied to this assessment.
  4. There are no SACs within the screening range for Onshore Ecology receptors, and therefore there is considered to be no LSE for the Onshore Ecology receptor group and it is not considered further within this assessment.
  5. The conclusions for LSE are presented in Table 8   Open ▸ . Where a potential LSE is identified, on a precautionary basis, it has been assumed by extension that there is the potential for LSE in-combination with other plans and projects.
Table 8:
Screening for LSE from the Dunbar Castle wardening role compensatory measure

Table 8: Screening for LSE from the Dunbar Castle wardening role compensatory measure


 

6.2. Assessment of Adverse Effect Alone – Information to Inform Appropriate Assessment

  1. Where the potential for LSE on a European site(s) has been identified ( Table 8   Open ▸ ), following the precautionary principle is a requirement to consider whether that potential effect(s) will adversely affect the integrity of the site in view of its conservation objectives. LSE applies where a feature is known to be sensitive to the effect and a potential pathway cannot be discounted.
  2. The assessment of AEoI to inform the AA for the Dunbar Castle wardening role compensatory measure is presented in Table 9   Open ▸ ; the table details all designated sites, features and effects for which LSE has been identified, proposes appropriate commitments (mitigation) that could be applied to avoid or reduce the impacts (Table 2), and provides conclusions on whether there is potential for AEoI after the application of these commitments for the project alone.  This assessment has been undertaken in view of all relevant conservation objectives published by the statutory nature conservation bodies.
Table 9:
Assessment of AEoI Alone for Dunbar Castle wardening role compensatory measure

Table 9: Assessment of AEoI Alone for Dunbar Castle wardening role compensatory measure

6.3. Assessment of Adverse Effect In-combination – Information to Inform Appropriate Assessment

  1. As the potential effects are exceedingly small in nature, no effects are anticipated further afield than Dunbar castle itself, and therefore the screening undertaken for plans and projects to be considered in-combination is limited to those with direct spatial overlap with the proposed compensatory measures.
  2. Following on from the above methodology, no projects have been identified for the consideration of in-combination effects. Therefore it can be concluded that this compensatory measure will not have an AEOI on any European site alone and in-combination with other plans and projects.

7. Habitats Regulations Assessment – Rat Eradication: Inchcolm

7.1. Assessment for LSE

  1. This measure is included as a secondary measure that may be implemented for adaptive management purposes. A complete account of this measure is provided although it should be noted that further stakeholder consultation would be required before this specific measure could be secured and the intention is not to take this measure forward as compensation at this stage for the purposes of the Derogation Case. 
  2. Screening for LSE considers the effects that may result from the rat eradication: Inchcolm secondary compensatory measure, as defined in Table 3   Open ▸ , in relation to the designated sites identified following the process described in Section 3.3. This section combines that information to determine LSE for the project alone. Key to LSE is the clear presence or absence of a pathway, linking the effect to a designated site or feature, together with known sensitivity of the feature to the effect.
  3. The presence or absence of a pathway is based on the scope and nature of the proposed compensatory measure activities together with the location of the designated feature, with the sensitivity of the feature(s) drawing on the relevant information available for the designated sites.
  4. For ornithological receptors, for the rat eradication: Inchcolm secondary compensatory measure, birds nesting at other breeding colonies within foraging range of Inchcolm island are unlikely to be impacted by disturbance as they will be spending their time rafting/ fishing at sea or at their nests at other colonies. Additionally, during the non-breeding season, seabirds are not restricted to particular sites as they are during the breeding season, therefore any disturbance caused by monitoring is unlikely to cause significant negative effects on individuals. Additionally, NatureScot Guidance for Scottish bird species considers that the maximum range of disturbance for any bird species is 1 km (NatureScot, 2022). Therefore, factoring in the above, the nature of effects associated with this measure, and the application of expert judgement, a highly precautionary screening buffer of 5 km has been applied to this assessment.
  5. Additionally, there are no SACs within the screening range for Onshore Ecology receptors, and therefore there is considered to be no LSE for the Onshore Ecology receptor group and it is not considered further within this assessment for this compensatory measure.
  6. The conclusions for LSE are presented Table 10. Where a potential LSE is identified, on a precautionary basis, it has been assumed by extension that there is the potential for LSE in-combination with other plans and projects.
Table 10:
Screening for LSE from the rat eradication: Inchcolm secondary compensatory measure

Table 10: Screening for LSE from the rat eradication: Inchcolm secondary compensatory measure

 

7.2. Assessment of Adverse Effect Alone – Information to Inform Appropriate Assessment

  1. Where the potential for LSE on a European site(s) has been identified ( Table 3   Open ▸ ), there is a requirement to consider whether that potential effect(s) will adversely affect the integrity of the site in view of its conservation objectives. LSE applies where a feature is known to be sensitive to the effect and a potential pathway cannot be discounted.
  2. The assessment of AEoI to inform the AA for the rat eradication: Inchcolm compensatory measure is presented in Table 11.The table details all designated sites, features and effects for which LSE has been identified, proposes appropriate commitments (mitigation) that could be applied to avoid or reduce the impacts ( Table 2   Open ▸ ), and provides conclusions on whether there is potential for AEoI after the application of these commitments. This assessment has been undertaken in view of all relevant conservation objectives published by the statutory nature conservation bodies.
Table 11:
Assessment of AEoI Alone for the rat eradication: Inchcolm compensatory measure

Table 11: Assessment of AEoI Alone for the rat eradication: Inchcolm compensatory measure

7.3. Assessment of Adverse Effect In-combination – Information to Inform Appropriate Assessment

  1. As the potential effects are exceedingly small in nature, no effects are anticipated further afield than Inchcolm Island itself, and therefore the screening undertaken for plans and projects to be considered in-combination is limited to those with direct spatial overlap with the proposed compensatory measures.
  2. Following on from the above methodology, no projects have been identified for the consideration of in-combination effects. Therefore it can be concluded that this compensatory measure will not have an AEOI on any European site alone and in-combination with other plans and projects

8. Conclusions

  1. This derogation case RIAA has considered the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the following proposed compensatory measures:
  • Management of SA4 sandeel fishery;
  • Rat Eradication: Handa;
  • Dunbar Castle wardening role; and
  • Rat Eradication: Inchcolm (as secondary compensation).
    1. For each compensatory measure, GIS has been applied to identify the relevant sites and features to consider for Stage 1 Screening. LSE is then established, per compensatory measure and for each site and feature. Where no LSE is identified, then the site/feature/effect is not carried forward to Stage 2 AA. Where LSE is identified alone, it is assumed that LSE applies in-combination.
    2. For all the proposed compensatory measures a range of sites were identified to have a LSE. However, when applying measure specific commitments ( Table 2   Open ▸ ), a conclusion of no AEoI has been drawn for all of the potential effects identified for these proposed compensatory measures. Therefore there is no requirement to progress beyond Stage 2.
    3. For all the compensatory measures assessed within this document it has been concluded that there is no potential for AEoI alone or in-combination.


9. References

9.1. Literature

Camphuysen, C.J., Calvo, B., J. Durinck, Ensor, K., Follestad, A., Furness, R.W., Gartge, S., Leaper, G., Skov, H., Tasker, M.L., and Winter, C.J.N. (1995). Consumption of discards by seabirds in the North Sea. Netherlands Institute for Sea Research. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287217991_Consumption_of_discards_by_seabirds_in_the_North_Sea

Cleasby, I.R., Owen, E., Wilson, L.J. & Bolton, M. (2018). Combining habitat modelling and hotspot analysis to reveal the location of high density seabird areas across the UK: Technical report. RSPB Research Report no. 63. RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, Sandy, UK: 135 pp.

Coleman, J.T., Coleman, A.E., Rickeard, A. & Anderson, R. (2011). Long-term monitoring of a colony of Black-legged Kittiwakes Rissa tridactyla in Scotland. Ringing and Migration, 26, 9-14.

Daunt, F., Wanless, S., Harris, M., Greenstreet, S., Jensen, H., & Hamer, K. (2007). The impact of the sandeel fishery closure on seabird food consumption, distribution, and productivity in the northwestern North Sea. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233609878_The_impact_of_the_sandeel_fishery_closure_on_seabird_food_consumption_distribution_and_productivity_in_the_northwestern_North_Sea.

Furness, R.W. & Tasker, M. (2000). Seabird‐fishery interactions: Quantifying the sensitivity of seabirds to reductions in sandeel abundance, and identification of key areas for sensitive seabirds in the North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 202: 253–264.

ICES (2017a). Stock Annex: Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in divisions 4.a and 4.b, Sandeel Area 4 (northern and central North Sea). Available at https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Stock%20Annexes/2017/san.sa.4_SA.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2021.

ICES (2020). Stock Annex: Sandeel (Ammodytes marinus) in the North Sea area 3 (SA3): 45 pp. https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Stock%20Annexes/2020/san.sa.3r_SA.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2021.

Oro, D. (1999) Trawler discards: a threat or a resource for opportunistic seabirds? In: Adams NJ, Slotow RH (eds) Proceedings 22 International Ornithol Congress Durban. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg, pp 717–730. Seabirds & Cetaceans: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. ISBN: 1 86107 5057.

Perrow, M.R., Harwood, A.J.P, Berridge, R.J. & Skeate, E.R. (2017). The foraging ecology of Sandwich Terns in north Norfolk. British Birds 110: 257–277.

Pichegru, L., Ryan, P.G., van Eeden, R., Reid, T., Grémillet, D. & Wanless, R. (2012). Industrial fishing, no-take zones and endangered penguins. Biological Conservation 156: 117–125.

Ratcliffe, N., Mitchell, I., Varnham, K., Verboven, N., and Higson, P. (2009). How to prioritise rat management for the benefit of petrels: a case study of the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. Ibis 151: 699-708.

Stanbury, A., Thomas, S., Aergeter, J., Brown, A., Bullock, D., Eaton, M., Lock, L., Luxmoore, R., Roy, S., Whittaker, S., and Oppel, S. (2017). Prioritising islands in the UK and crown dependencies for the eradication of invasive alien vertebrates and rodent biosecurity. Eur J Wildl Res.

Thomas, S., and Varnham, S. (2016). Island Biosecurity Manual. Seabird Island Restoration Project, RSPB. RSPB, Sandy, Bedfordshire.

Thomas, S., Brown, A., Bullock, D., Lock, L. Luxmoore, R., Roy, S., Stanbury, A., & Varnham, K. (2017). Island restoration in the UK – past, present and future. British Wildlife 28:4, p.231-243.

Votier, S.C., Furness, R.W., Bearhop, S., Crane, J.E., Caldow, R.W.G., Catry, P., Ensor, K., Hamer, K.C., Hudson, A.V., Kalmbach, E., Klomp, N.I., Pfeiffer, S., Phillips, R.A., Prieto, I., and Thompson, D.R. (2004). Changes in fisheries discard rates and seabird communities. Nature 427: 727-730.

Wakefield, E.D., Bodey, T.W., Bearhop, S., Blackburn, J., Colhoun, K., Davies, R., Dwyer, R. G., Green, J.A., Grémillet, D., Jackson, A.L., Jessopp, M.J., Kane, A., Langston, R.H., Lescroël, A., Murray, S., Le Nuz, M., Patrick, S.C., Péron, C., Soanes, L.M., Wanless, S., Votier, S.C. & Hamer, K.C. (2013). Space partitioning without territoriality in gannets. Science 341: 68–70.

Wanless, S. & Harris, M. P. (1993). Use of mutually exclusive foraging areas by adjacent colonies of blue-eyed shags (Phalacrocorax atriceps) at South Georgia. Colonial Waterbirds 16: 176–182.

Wanless, S., Harris, M.P., Newell, M.A., Speakman, J.R. & Daunt, F. (2018). Community-wide decline in the occurrence of lesser sandeels Ammodytes marinus in seabird chick diets at a North Sea colony. Marine Ecology Progress Series 600: 193–206.

Woodward, I., Thaxter, C.B., Owen, E., and Cook, A.S.C.P. (2019). Desk-based revision of seabird foraging ranges used for HRA screening.

9.2. Website

MMO (2018) New guidance for fishermen ahead of full discard ban. Guidance for the fishing industry as the full Landing Obligation comes into force from January 1 2019.Available at: New guidance for fishermen ahead of full discard ban - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) Accessed on 08 December 2022

NatureScot (2022). Disturbance Distances in selected Scottish Bird Species – NatureScot Guidance. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/doc/disturbance-distances-selected-scottish-bird-species-naturescot-guidance. Accessed on 21 November 2022.

SNH (2012). Better Places for People and Nature. Available at: http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/places/better%20places.pdf. Accessed on: 12 October 2022.

9.3. Legislation

European Union (EU) (2019). Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures. Available online: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/1241.

European Union (EU) (2020). Regulation (EU) 2020/123 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2020 fixing for 2020 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters. Available online: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2020/123/introduction.


This page is intentionally blank